I agree, I fully expect to have a rigorous vocabulary and attribute review when it comes to 2.0. I honestly did not expect this much fuss over 2 attributes in 1.0.*, but I welcome the discussion :) Since these attributes only exist in the new 1.0.1 devices, I agree they should be removed and revisited in 2.0. I will remove them shortly.
As for release date, YYYY-mm sounds good. Pixel density is a *must* attribute for 2.0. With pixel density, we can calculate the physical screen dimensions, or the other way around, screen dimensions gives us pixel density. Its cleaner to store the density. Do we have the physical screen dimensions for pre devicemap devices in your database? Ex: 2.5in x 4.4in ________________________________ From: Werner Keil <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 7:43 PM Subject: Re: device data 1.0.1 - preview Good point, we should keep a certain sanity especially regarding data, since it affects all major clients, I recall to have mentioned that earlier;-) Werner On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:46 AM, eberhard speer jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > > So I added 2 new properties to the devices, release year and pixel > > density. No real motive... > > The point is not the reason, not the "motive", the point is the manner. > We all appear to agree the Vocabulary needs a review and more, better > Properties, but let's not use "so I added..." as a method. > So, please stop adding properties before we reach consensus on their > need, format etc. > > With regard to release date, which I agree should be added, the > YYYY-mm -- it is a standard after all -- appears to be the consensus. > So, I have no objections to it being added in that format. > [I can provide release dates for existing devices -- where known] > > I'm not sure about the pixel density. Not so much the need to include > it, I can see that, but because of the fact that more 'similar' > Properties may be included in the big Data 2.0 update which is > planned. So, I'd say, if you must, include it [how many devices out of > a total of...] keeping in mind that its name and format [why not > include the unit of measure, for example] may change for 2.0. > > So : > Release date : yes please : YYYY-mm > Pixel density : yes...but better wait for 2.0 > > esjr > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUBkjKAAoJEOxywXcFLKYcZ3EH/jdNEftbHuD5B2vbiTrNaJ5m > BSzqvudSCC0PaMA58pi4xV0zn9EcuxmdkOu2zcy915hWTCk7KE97lhiyYLptFGnG > Rdzt6aPgLnf8wkH53daFaYCAbkLWPdeBmiOBtn9iN215LOo6d0bDbKSE4JqCxt3j > rWsGD49jr6T+VyRXBScWkjLIA0d1zDdzyRoZTh3kc2YMrYL1+WTAzXfpc0mYCV4q > pTSTIcHe1nbiJKvikuTZTCEiYyUGw2I0LXbl2a0KcfolbPr0amw38XJYoZEOl3G1 > IjR8Jagr/OAiOmlqL/prxflA3ISGIfIw2QUEnNBQPWrM+dH6nlYpv63Lj78JG2M= > =P44+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
